Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomelders | Hacker News Reader

What world is this? When did everyone lose their minds and decide it was ok for some people to be Homophobes, but not for others?

Can I be a racist if I'm a CEO? Am I free from criticism for my horrible beliefs just because I run an organisation that people like? Does donating $1000 to a movement that campaigns to take rights away form black people have any reflection on me? Can I be trusted to not let my world view have any effect on my work?

Can a cop be a homophobe, or a racist, and still be trusted to do their job without letting their world view interfere with the application of the law?

I'm genuinely sickened by the people here on HN clamouring to pardon Eich and blame those with a strong moral compass for the downfall he inflicted on himself.

View on HN

I think you might be missing the overarching issue here.

It isn't so much about the specifics of gay marriage, or Eich's donation, or him losing his job because of his opinions.

The real issue is hypocrisy, contradiction and double-standards.

We've seen one group (in this case the pro-gay-marriage crowd) act in a way towards others (Eich and the anti-gay-marriage crowd) that the first group would think is absolutely abhorrent were they the target, yet they consider perfectly acceptable when they direct it towards others.

On one hand, we've seen arguments like, "There is no right to free speech without consequences." and, "he had views that the community was overwhelmingly against" used in this very submission's discussion to justify Eich losing his job merely for expressing an opinion that may be construed as against gay marriage.

Yet imagine the uproar if somebody lost his or her job for merely expressing an opinion in favor of gay marriage, and those exact same arguments were used to justify it.

It's difficult to take people seriously when they claim to support "equality" and "tolerance", or when they claim to be against "discrimination", yet they act in a way that's completely contradictory to all of those ideals.

If one group of people is going to hold another group of people to a certain set of standards, they really should make sure that they're willing to live by that exact same set of standards, too.

When people talk about equality, what they really mean is that people should not be punished, mistreated or excluded because of something they have no control over such as their gender, or skin color. But you seem to think that equality means people can think and do exactly as they please without consequence.

> We've seen one group (in this case the pro-gay-marriage crowd) act in a way towards others

Who exaclty? Which crowds? Because from where I'm looking it looks like people in the Mozilla organisation were responsible for this.

> If one group of people is going to hold another group of people to a certain set of standards, they really should make sure that they're willing to live by that exact same set of standards, too.

No. Society as a whole decides who's in, who's out. For centuries the gays were out and all the same sex marriage opponents were fine with that. Now the tides have turned and the homophobes are out. And good riddance because we lost some good people under the old tyranny.

Not everyone on this side of the argument is a tree hugging vegan liberal who thinks everyone should get along and form a consensus. I'm personally little more than an angry lump with fists and a strong sense of right and wrong. Appealing to some sense of balance you think I should have is a non starter. Show me a point in history where society was balanced and then we'll talk. I'm just hoping the people who hate unconditionally have to live under the tyranny of those who believe in real world fairness and real world equality.

"what they really mean .. because of something they have no control over"

That's not fully correct. Equality usually extends to religion, and people have some control over which religion and church they belong to. In the US, veteran status is also a protected class, even though membership in the military is voluntary. Others say that single and married employees should be treated the same, even though people have some say over their marriage status.

I think it's not a good idea to focus on the "no control over" aspect in arguments concerning homosexuality since some believe that homosexuals choose to be that way, and because equality doesn't depend only on intrinsic attributes.

Not tolerating intolerance, is not intolerance.

I don't like this idea. Any strong disagreement by one side could reasonably be called intolerance by there other. And then where does it end? Tolerating other people, even when they act in a way contradictory to your own moral convictions is the definition of tolerance.

What Eich did was not illegal. It was disagreeable to many. But tolerant people would chose instead to strive the more for their position without directly attacking him and his career. That is what the intolerant do. Intolerance says "I disagree with your actions and your thoughts therefore I must prevent you from having any power or influence in our society." Tolerance says, "I disagree with your thoughts and actions, therefore I will work to persuade you otherwise. Failing that I will find a way to coexist with you, despite our disagreements. We will build a society that that respects the differences, and protects the weak from abuse by the strong, regardless of their beliefs."

It isn't about acting in a certain way.

No one expects Eich to get married - he wanted to prevent other people from getting married because they are gay.

His personal actions were not illegal, but the movement he supported (banning same sex marriage) was deemed to be unconstitutional.

If you only tolerate those people who are tolerant, then how is that even a virtue?

Being in opposition to same-sex marriage does not make one a homophobe (even some gays are against it). If Eich did not express any aversion or hatred towards homosexuals, it is not justified to label him as a homophobe.

Some black people are racist towards black people. They're a minority though, so we don't let it muddy our definition of what racism means because that wouldn't be productive.

The same holds true here. Homophobic is as homophobic does.

Did I say anything about homosexuals who are also homophobes? My point is that being against same-sex marriage is not necessarily homophobic.

So what does this sentence mean then?

Being in opposition to same-sex marriage does not make one a homophobe (even some gays are against it).

What's does the "even some gays are against it" mean?

Even some gays are against same-sex marriage. And that does not mean that they are also homophobes.

Are you saying that being opposed to SSM can't be homophobic because some gays are also opposed to SSM?

That remark (which I put in brackets because it was not integral to my main argument) was meant to hint that even within LGBT community there are different positions on SSM.

A position against SSM does not imply homophobia because it is not necessarily based on hatred or aversion towards homosexuals. For instance, there is no justification in calling Eich a homophobe.

What bothers me is a tendency of LGBT activists to put a homophobe label on everyone with an opinion they do not like. That is a witch hunt.

These are strong feelings. Don't you think that everyone is entitled to their own opinions ? In any case you can't force somebody to think differently, otherwise it's bullying.

I'm pro LGBT and I think this is a loss for the cause. I'm pro LGBT because I don't think that people should get persecuted for being different. I want to promote peace, tolerance and compassion. Bullying someone into stepping down from his role is contrary to that belief.

Do you really think that Eich staying in his post would have made a difference to the LGBT cause ?

Would you be fine if Eich had donated $1000 to an group trying to stop inter-racial marriage? Inter-racial marriage issues are not some far past thing, "In October 2009, Keith Bardwell, a Louisiana justice of the peace, refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple..."

In your mind, is being against interracial marriage just an opinion people shouldn't be held to account for... or like me, would you say "of course fire the racist asshole".

> Would you be fine if Eich had donated $1000 to an group trying to stop inter-racial marriage?

If it were 1875, and if by "fine", you mean fine with the donor becoming a CEO rather than fine with them as a person, then I'd be fine with it. Change that to 2014 and I would not be fine with it.

These judgements need to be made in context of the times. I find it hard to fault individuals for thinking like and acting in accord with the large majority of their contemporaries, even if I think the majority is not taking the right position.

The speed at which the "public" comes to a majority (and overwhelming trajectory) behind an issue is faster and faster due in part due to Eich's technology.

61% of young Republican leaning voters support marriage equality, the issue is over, just waiting out those who haven't yet realized this is no longer a debate, like Eich, to catch up.

> an opinion people shouldn't be held to account for...

I believe people should be held publicly accountable for their actions, not their thoughts/opinions, no matter how strongly I may disagree with their ideas. I wouldn't be too worried about a CEO of Mozilla who had at some point contributed $1000 to a group trying to stop interracial- (or gay-, or plural-, or cats-and-dogs-) marriage by itself, if it were the person's own money. There are benign reasons a person may support such views, however misguided they may be, without being motivated by hate. So nothing in that contribution alone to makes me suspect the person would behave unfairly in the workplace towards the group of people supporting such marriage or trying to be married. To bring it back from the thought experiment to the current situation, I'm pretty sure a lot of people worked with Brendan at Mozilla, and I haven't heard of anyone coming forward with complaints of homophobia against him after working with/for him... so yeah.

Then we simply disagree, actively pursuing hateful legislation is something I am not compelled to overlook. This is something he did in public, on the record, with full knowledge. If someone actively pushed for racist laws, I would want them booted as well.

So I guess we simply disagree on this issue.

What if it was a donation to Americans United or Planned Parenthood? There are people who earnestly believe that AU hates religions and-or religious people, or that PP hates traditional family structure. What if he donated to a group that was against the Affordable Heathcare Act? What if he donated to a group that was for it? There are many reasons why people may support different causes or groups, and a contribution in and of itself doesn't do anything to show that it is motivated by hate or fear. You need to look at the person's other actions in order to better determine that.

I don't really believe in marriage as an institution but think it's great as an expression of love. It's a way to say to your friends and family that you're in love and it's going to stay that way. In that sense I don't see why it should be a privilege to heterosexual white people.

But I'm not going to judge someone based on a single thing. Who am I to say that Eich is homophobic based on a single variable ? I don't know that person. The only person qualified to say something are the ones working with him, all the rest is noise and disrespectful.

It's tragic in some way. The LGBT movement is trying to raise awareness by fighting against prejudice. Because you're gay/lesbian/... people will expect you to behave in certain ways. And it hurts because you're denied of just being a human and yourself. And now Eich has been judged with prejudice. I don't this it's fair. People place him into the anti-gay camp and so by definition he becomes all the wrongs that this group represents and nothing rational comes out of this.

Also who are we to take justice into our own hands ? This feels very wrong to me. Going back to the dark ages, just declare someone anti-gay and make him burn. I understand that it's not possible to be impartial on every subject but isn't it possible to elevate ourselves above that ?

He actively gave money to an issue with a single goal of limiting the rights of others. He then didn't repudiate the views, after being given many chances to do so and encourage to do so by the staff at Mozilla.

I don't think people unfairly ascribed a perspective to him. He is against marriage equality. He got called out for it, and driven out of town.

Yes but it's not rational and doesn't help the cause. Everyone has prejudices. If you can't talk about them without fearing some form of angry mob jumping at you then there is no way for people to understand each-other. I don't think there was any way out for him.

And again, as external people who don't know anything about the person we can only have a simplistic view of him. And judging him on this is also a prejudice.

No one said it's ok to be racist or homophobic. The problem is lynching. I can clearly image similar case when someone hasn't done anything, but there is a semi-proof that he/she did. What if internet mob go after his/her family?

What if? What if they don't?

Wah? Fascism much?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com